Stephen Schneider in Attack of the Climate Zombies

The late Stephen Schneider was a hero to many of us because he believed it was the duty of scientists to engage the public on their terms and he was brilliant in doing so. The video above was taped a few weeks before he died this summer. Dr. Schneider appeared on stage in front of 57 self-described climate skeptics with the hope that he might change some minds. The video is an excellent example of just how good he was at communicating climate science and just how poorly informed the general public is on this critical issue.

The skeptics in the room appeared very sure of their positions despite the fact that every issue they raised is a climate science zombie. That is, these issues have been debunked over and over and over again, yet they keep rising from the dead. Dr. Schneider answered with patience and with as much simplicity as one can expect without completely leaving the science. The zombies raised that night included, among others:

Some members of the audience thought that Dr. Schneider used too much science jargon and could have simplified the science more. After watching the show I do not think Dr. Schneider could possibly have simplified the science any better than he did. In the words of Barry Bickmore, geochemistry professor at Brigham Young University,

It struck me again how some of these people complained at the end that Schneider’s arguments had gone right over their heads. If they can’t understand what anyone is saying, how can they think they have anything approaching an informed opinion?

Apparently, as with human zombies, climate zombies are good at eating brains……

Related

10 Responses

Yeah, Schneider’s arguments had gone right over their heads. Having an “informed opinion” often includes the totally unjustified view that any reasonably cluey person can understand anything at first reading.

It’s true a clever person can understand lots of things – after they’ve put in a reasonable amount of work. In the case of physics, reasonable suddenly adds up to unreasonable for anyone who has a life and hasn’t previously learnt the material. I’m sure that I could understand the history and complexity of wood carving in the New Guinea highlands if I put in enough work. But I haven’t so I have to accept the views of respected people who tell me the results of their studies.

For all that these folks wanted to appear knowledgeable, it all falls rather flat when they confuse latitude and altitude. Schneider being gracious allowed as how his accent might have confused the words – I didn’t hear him say altitude.

Doubly sad. The feeble and futile blatherings from the assembled nay-sayers added to the knowledge that this wonderful, patient, suffering man had died before we got to see him in this particular outing.

This is a good example of the point that I was attempting at in my last post. This “climate debate” is no more a scientific debate than the evolution/creation debate is.
Here Schneider makes it clear that it’s not a case of education – for the information is out there and in vast quantities. By diverting scepticism from an informed scientific basis and fostering a public/political debate, the situation has become a stale-mate where the “two camps” are arguing over their beliefs – one that is built on the scientific evidence and the other on a whole range of pseudo-science and political nonsense.
The problem, therefore, must be deeper rooted in the general public’s ability to critically evaluate ideas and evidence rather than being informed.